What is it that you think you are doing, daswig? Do you think you are providing a logical reason that gay marriage should not be legal? In this entire thread, you have provided two reasons that you believe gay marriage should not be legal:
1- Because gay people are perverted, apparently to a degree more so than yourself that should therefore prohibit them from being afforded the right to marry, a right that your own perverted-self enjoys.
2- Because the gov't wants healthy children and a gay married couple would negatively impact the possibility of healthy children.
The rest of your energy in this thread has been almost exclusively devoted to describing your perspective on
how gay marriage is presently not legal. Do you see the difference? No one is arguing
whether gay marriage
is legal. The standard discussion around this topic is whether gay marriage
should be legal.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by daswig
What, exactly, have I NOT explained to death about my first post? Please be SPECIFIC.
|
The entirety of it. Let me break it down for you:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by daswig
No, it isn't. There are those who demand that they receive special privileges.
|
Maybe from your perspective, the ability of a man and woman to be married is a special privilege, or maybe not. But from almost everyone else's perspective this is a right. So a person demanding the ability for two people of the same gender to marry is also the demand for a right. That they presently do not have that right does not make it a privilege above and beyond (a special privilege) the existing privlege afforded to heterosexual couples.
Quote:
|
As long as they keep demanding this, there is no accomodation that can be reached which will satisfy both parties.
|
And the converse is true - as long as they are denied this, there is no accomodation that can be reached which will satisfy both parties. Either they stop demanding to have the same rights as heterosexuals, or heterosexuals stop preventing them from sharing those rights.
Quote:
|
There WILL eventually be a Constitutional Amendment along the lines of DOMA. And it's going to suck for the gays, but they've brought it upon themselves by advocating so vehemently for the "right" to marry.
|
This is like claiming the woman brought the rape upon herself by wearing a mini skirt to a bar. It's utter nonsense. If there is a Constitutional Amendment along the lines of DOMA, it is going to suck for gay people, it is going to suck for heterosexuals and it will be very specifically due to the unfortunate intolerance and discriminatory mindset of the heterosexuals that create and lobby for it.
Quote:
|
I've got nothing against perversion. In fact, I SUPPORT perversion. But when perverts try to force their beliefs upon the rest of the population, they're going to get smacked down.
|
And here's your contradiction which I will now point out for the 4th time and that you have yet to explain or answer for. You have already claimed to be a pervert. You are married. So why shouldn't another pervert who does not have the right that you, as a pervert, have, be prohibited from acquiring that right simply because they ask for it? And what exactly does "force their beliefs upon the rest of the population" mean? Do you believe they are trying to force everyone to be gay? What about the fact that the rest of the population is trying... no, succeeding in forcing them to be heterosexual? Should heterosexuals therefore have their right to marry taken away from them? Almost all of them are perverts.
And really. If perverts is essentially the norm - why would you even use the word other than to be intentionally confrontational.